im so sick of seeing reports regarding men posting in women-only communities and i cant help but get annoyed with these guys.
the rules are clearly presented. either youre not paying attention or youre just an asshole who purposefully throws their opinion in a place explicitly not wanting it.
what the fuck is wrong with you guys?
OK, I pulled out a computer for you so I could see the rules side by side with my post because my mobile client doesn’t allow it.
OP came in swinging hot, maybe a little toxic, but there are valid points behind the hot words.
However, OP has shown that they are able to accept other viewpoints from valid arguments (https://lemmy.ca/post/48960508/18080134). So I would argue this is borderline.
I have to say, I have no idea what sealioning is though.
This isn’t a “How do I”. This is an open ended attempt (with some frustration) to try to under why members of the community do certain things.
That’s my view anyway. What’s yours?
I am fine with not commenting in women-only spaces, but that is very much not what OP is trying to do. OP is venting and using a rhetorical question they don’t seem to particularly want an answer to. Is that “requesting support?” Does that extend to emotional/moral support?
I think if the OP is complaining about not following the rules and spirit of a community when posting, it seems appropriate to point out if they are violating the rules (and spirit) of the community they post it in.
Sealioning is when someone pretends to be ‘just asking questions’ in good faith in an attempt to sow discord in a community.
Fuckin’ hate that Kareny lickspittle bullshit. 🤌🏼
“Cite sources of your claim, prove it, and spend ages providing material that I will dismiss as irrelevant!”.
The name comes from this comic:
Sparrohawcs explanation is also a pretty good one.
That just seems like an objection whiners raise when they dislike challenges: they
No one needs to answer challenges to their argument or “spend ages providing material”. By that same token, no one else needs to care about a weak, poorly defended argument.
It’s easy enough to ignore or reciprocate preposterous lines of questioning: seems like a skills issue.
As for “sowing discord”, there’s a strong philosophical tradition of doing pretty much that (ie, shamelessly, impudently breaking conformity to unchallenged conventions & assumptions) to dispel “false belief, mindlessness, folly, and conceit” in the pursuit of “mental clarity or lucidity”. They were called dogs & would even state “other dogs bite their enemies, I bite my friends to save them”. Such classical philosophers might be called trolls nowadays.
Any system that treats them as trolls is broken in my opinion.
I shared my view and left the community. Was something about my comment unclear?
I didn’t see why it was a clear violation of rule 5. I was wondering why you thought it was